The Philosophy and Practice of Nature Cure

Leah Leneman

Nature Cure is very much in the news these days: not under its own name but under the umbrella of ‘Alternative Medicine’. The two are far from synonymous, for that umbrella shelters therapies, which have no connection with, and would never be countenanced by Nature Cure practitioners. However, Nature Cure is most emphatically an alternative to conventional medicine.

The name could be said to define the philosophy, which is quite different from that of conventional medicine. This philosophy was formulated in 1912 by James C. Thomson, a naturopathic pioneer who rapidly developed certain empirical techniques into a complete therapeutic method or approach which is now conveniently described as straight nature cure. The term ‘straight’ is used in order to distinguish such an approach from that which employs remedies e.g. herbal, homeopathic, biochemical, vitamin, hormonal or pharmaceutical preparations.

James C. Thomson was also the founder of the Edinburgh School of Natural Therapeutics in 1918 with a four year full-time curriculum and co-founder of the Incorporated Society of Registered Naturopaths. Naturopaths do not view the body as a battleground in which hostile germs and viruses must be vanquished by ever-more-powerful wonder drugs, but as an organism capable of curing itself if allowed to do so without outside interference. Nature itself is the great ‘curer’, but most of us have long since forgotten how to live in harmony with nature.

The differences between the two approaches may be defined more specifically. A patient who goes to a doctor will expect the doctor to note his or her symptoms and to prescribe something to relieve those symptoms. If the symptoms are relieved then the doctor is considered successful in vanquishing the enemy. If the patient goes to a naturopath he or she should not expect symptoms to be the primary concern. Of course naturopaths are as keen to have their patients feeling better as doctors are — they wouldn’t be in the business otherwise — but acute symptoms are regarded not as enemies but as friends, because they act as signposts to what is really wrong. Simply relieving (which often means suppressing) symptoms is not a solution in the long-term, and indeed in certain instances can lead to diseases becoming chronic. The naturopath sees his or her role as one of assisting patients to assess themselves as complete entities rather than as a collection of symptoms, in order to put right whatever is causing the disease.

It follows from this that Nature Cure provides no quick and easy solutions. It demands a degree of commitment which is generally absent in those who depend on doctors and prescriptions. The Nature Cure practitioner does not dole out magic remedies: he or she may require the patient to adopt a completely new lifestyle. The fundamental tenet of Nature Cure is that a person who lives in accordance with the rules of nature is likely to be a healthy person.

This philosophy is all very well, some may say, but what do naturopaths actually do? Basically the approach is three-pronged.

The first prong is nutrition. An organism fed on de-natured, artificially flavoured and coloured, highly salted and sugared foods is unlikely to be in the kind of optimum condition which allows its regenerative abilities to function at their best. So the first step in many cases is to re-educate people into better eating habits. Nature Cure believes that the ideal diet should consist of roughly 60% vegetables and fruit, 20% protein and 20% starch. (On such a diet comparatively little extra liquid should be required; nature cure considers excessive imbibing of fluids a bad thing.) A proportion of the vegetables should be taken raw as salad each day, and naturally the starch should all be unrefined whole grains. Nature Cure insisted that animal fats were harmful to the human body long before conventional medicine caught up with the idea, and a Nature Cure diet is largely a vegetarian diet.
The second prong is also physical, but it deals with the externals rather than with what goes into the body. A programme of moderate exercise (walking and swimming are considered ideal) is seen as an essential prerequisite to good health. The exercise should be taken daily, if possible, in order to be of real benefit. Proper breathing, skincare, posture, even clothing, all come into this category, for they all make a difference to the state of the whole organism. Relaxation is of crucial importance. The naturopath can help by means of massage and gentle manipulation, but the patient must learn what the root of the problem is in order to correct it.
In many cases the origins of the problem are not really physical but psychological, and this is the third prong of Nature Cure. The naturopath tries to help the patient to understand himself or herself a little better, to comprehend the reasons for a particular behaviour pattern. Anyone who is unwilling to come to terms with the underlying causes of their actions is unlikely to find any kind of permanent cure for what is ailing them. For example, workaholics and over-achievers who feel the need to constantly push themselves harder than the norm may be compensating for a childhood when their parents’ approval was always sought but never gained; the result in adult life may be migraines or other physical problems with no obvious cause. Because Nature Cure examines the whole individual rather than just the symptoms, naturopaths have learnt to recognise links between certain emotional states or behaviour patterns and specific diseases. No one can force a patient to face unpalatable truths, but warm encouragement will usually engender trust and honesty.

It is easy enough to see how different Nature Cure is from conventional western medicine. Of course, in some ways modern medicine has grown closer to Nature Cure. For example, it now accepts the importance of exercise, of eating high-fibre foods, of not smoking, etc. In other ways it has grown further away, with a degree of specialisation which now occurs and in the plethora of complex drugs which it prescribes. Yet it is important to stress again that no matter how close or how far apart, the difference in approach is fundamental. Doctors believe they can cure patients. Naturopaths believe that all they can do is to create a ‘healing situation’ in which nature can take its natural course and true healing occur.

Naturopaths obviously accept that there are conditions which are not amenable to treatment by Nature Cure. If surgery is required then clearly a surgeon must perform the operation — though the patients recovery may well be speeded up by following Nature Cure principles. Naturopaths also accept that we all start out with a different genetic inheritance. One man may abuse his body in every conceivable way yet appear to enjoy robust health, while another may take every care yet suffer a series of ailments. Nature Cure does not promise perfection; what it promises is the realisation of the individual’s full potential.

One difficulty which Nature Cure faces is that it is so often seen as a last resort. After a lifetime of unhealthy habits and repeated visits to doctors, a person may become so desperate he or she will decide to try Nature Cure. By this time the physical organism may have deteriorated to such an extent that full health is no longer even a possibility. This said, however, even patients in the most extreme cases are likely to find that if they eschew their old habits and adopt a Nature Cure regime they will gradually find at least some relief.

It will doubtless sound more than a little ironic to say so, but naturopaths would prefer to see healthy people than sick people. Persuading people to adopt a lifestyle in line with Nature Cure principles would be far more effective in improving the nation’s health than treating patients who have come to Nature Cure in extremis. Of course naturopaths want to do everything they can to help men and women who are suffering, but the fact remains that many of them need not have ended up in such distress had they adopted a different lifestyle much earlier. To do so, however, would mean accepting responsibility for one’s own health rather than delegating it to the medical profession.

The fact that alternative medicine is so much in the news these days as a subject worthy of serious attention is an indication that more and more people are choosing to do precisely that. After the glittering promises of the new wonder drugs and a nation cured of all its ills, disillusionment has set in. Now is the time for Nature Cure to become more widely known than ever before, for now people are beginning to understand that health is not something one can get from a pill: it is something to be worked at with perserverance. Nature Cure can point the way; the rest is up to us.

The Philosophy and Practice of Nature Cure

Leah Leneman

www.naturecuresociety.org